About this blog:

This site was not developed with the intention of drawing a large number of visitors using trivial methods and shallowness. There is rejoicing among the angels when even one sinner repents and believes in Jesus Christ. (Luke 15:10) If, for as long as this site exists, just one sinner is led to repentance and belief in Christ with the aid of the material presented here, the purpose of this site has been served.


My photo

Married to @SueBirdChaplin, LaneCh on Youtube, Host of Rightly Divided, Reagan Conservative, J.D., Deacon at Christ Reformed of Anaheim (Rom.7:24-25a)




Google+ Followers

The Tip Jar

*Buying from any of the ads below helps support future Youtube projects.

Go Stand Speak

Thank You Cards


Follow by Email

Popular Posts

Blog Archive


Paid Advertising

    • Site Meter

      Celebrity in Christianity? with guest Phil Johnson | RIGHTLY DIVIDED | Episode 13

      Tuesday, January 24, 2012

      Is there really a such thing as a "Christian Celebrity?" Should these exist? Is it inherently wrong for a Christian or their ministry to be popular? Phil Johnson, Executive Director of John MacArthur's Grace to You Ministry and blogger at Team Pyro, provides a balanced view of these issues in this edition of Rightly Divided.

      Phil's blog: http://teampyro.blogspot.com



      Alex Guggenheim said...

      Maybe you can ask Phil Johnson about his sycophantic protection of John Piper and some of his incredibly grave departures from sound orthodoxy. Johnson's theological/moral authority is lost on many because of his refusal to address, directly and emphatically, as he does easy targets like Driscoll, Piper's theological fallacies.

      He won't. He couldn't endure a debate with someone about Piper for 10 minutes unless he got to be the moderator and threaten his adversary with banishment dare he use the very tactics Johnson uses to make arguments (that is called getting to hold the mic) or worse, when his opponent produces superior arguments and points out his brittle case.

      I have no problem seeing the rightness of someone's teaching or contributions but I won't turn a blind eye to their duplicity or, in the least, commendation by omission, of a seriously erring teacher on vital subjects. Not to mention Federal Vision Teacher, Doug Wilson that Johnson is enamored with.

      Bible doctrine resident in the soul.

      Lane Chaplin said...

      Here's the first part of Johnson hammering Piper's decision on having Warren at Desiring God. He doesn't hold back, so I'm not sure about "his sycophantic protection of John Piper." That's a bit absurd. (http://www.fightingforthefaith.com/2011/06/piper-warren-debrief-with-phil-johnson.html)

      As far as, "some of his incredibly grave departures from sound orthodoxy"... examples?

      Alex Guggenheim said...

      Johnson's approach toward Piper's dance with Warren was nothing more than Saturday Night Live making fun of a liberal. They only make fun of what is not the real problem, a core doctrinal problem. He associated with the wrong guy, let's harp on that but ignore larger problems. That is a zero on the scale of injury compared to the doctrinal injury and practical injury Piper is promoting.

      I do not believe sycophantic is very far from the truth as the statistic show per his references to Piper when making objections (which are very rare) being very seldom doctrinal, if ever, and if it is a foray into doctrinal problems and simply association or bad terminology concerns. But by far and large and substantially, his grave errors are treated with kid gloves and it is surrounded by a cloud of praise so large that any criticisms are generally indistinguishable.

      My problem? I see Johnson assuming the role of of gatekeeper and that is fine but he is selective and inconsistent, at best.

      Piper is a Neo-Calvinist on a good day. I am somewhat surprised you need "examples". I would have expected you to have been expose to objections which abound.

      I am sure you are familiar with Christian Hedonism and its errant claims but if not this is an excellent Reformed reivew:


      you won't see Johnson tackling these objections, that is for sure.

      But let me do one better, Piper in this video,


      on defining justification states: “we should rely entirely on the righteousness of Christ, imputed to us by faith alone, as the ground for God being 100% for us after which necessary sanctification comes”

      The first part is right the second part is certainly not justification by faith alone because he includes sanctification as a necessary element for justification or in defining justification. Sanctification (he is talking about practical not positional sanctification) has NOTHING to do with our justification, it does not, anywhere in this manner, belong in its definition but Piper puts it there. A sanctified life is NOT required for justification, but Piper says so. You won't see Johnson touch that, either. But he is a Calvinist, I suspect he might agree and if you didn't know that you should have, that is logical application of their erring teaching of perseverance.

      You asked for examples, I gave two so far. I encourage you to at least read the review of critique of Christian Hedonism and ask Johnson why we omits fully interacting with such criticisms of Piper.

      So why are so many saying the same thing about Piper? Thanks for allowing the frank interaction.

      Lane Chaplin said...

      When you said, "and some of his incredibly grave departures from sound orthodoxy" in your first post, I interpreted that as referring to Phil.

      Alex Guggenheim said...

      Ah, okay, gotcha. Thanks again for the allowance of frank interaction.

      Steve Martin said...

      Piper and Warren are two peas in a pod.

      With these guys it always reverts back to...'you'.

      The onus is on 'you'.

      They both bore me to tears.

      Steve Martin said...

      Did I write that? (above)

      Holy Moly...I think I need a vacation. Need to lighten up a bit.


      Phil Johnson said...

      I just discovered these comments by Alex Guggenheim. For the record, he is the only person in the history of the universe who has ever accused me of having a sycophantic attachment to John Piper.

      He said something similar HERE, and I gather he still holds that view, although my reply simply would be: A simple reading of the post above his comment ought to be sufficient to refute his charge.

      I DID rebuke some mouthy women who fancy themselves experts in discernment because they left some crabby, tasteless, and totally inappropriate insults aimed at John Piper on my Facebook page. If that constitutes "sycophantic protection of John Piper" in Guggenheim's book, it seems to me that says more about him than it does about me.


      terriergal said...

      "I DID rebuke some mouthy women who fancy themselves experts in discernment because they left some crabby, tasteless, and totally inappropriate insults aimed at John Piper on my Facebook page"

      Heaven forbid women should write like Johnson and Turk.

      He even suggested people ought not to blog like himself, the other day on Wretched. No surprise there.

      Sycophantic attachment, I would concur. Johnson was far more interested in badmouthing women like Ingrid Schlueter (in spite of the fact that he CLAIMS he had no specific person in mind) who may say things in a way he doesn't like, instead of a 'duly ordained' pastor who is consorting with a wolf. Gnat/camel anyone?

      I agree with Guggenheim, Johnson lost all cred there. If he issued a real mea culpa after that I missed it. But sadly I haven't seen any change in attitude in the posts i have seen.

      Related Posts with Thumbnails

      A Blue Ink Blog